Baptism is a strange rite. Even among people who study it there are wide differences in their opinions.

Many people who follow Calvin in his teachings will baptize infants just as the Catholic church does. In this they are following the teachings that Augustine made popular in the early 5th century. The view that they hold is that baptism is a replacement for the circumcision that the Jews performed under the old law.

Some of the others who follow a newer kid on the block, Dispensationalism, believe that baptism is no longer relevant to us because it was not commanded by Paul. From the book Things That Differ by C. R. Stam that I am currently reading through (page 227):

That question is not whether water baptism is found in the Scriptures, nor who should be baptized, nor how. The first question which concerns us is: should we practice water baptism now? Is it included in God's program for the present dispensation?

This view is what has prompted tonight’s post and there is enough implied in this paragraph to get us started. Ironically, I questioned this same assumption nearly a decade ago. At the time I told God that if he wanted me to get baptized he needed to show me that he required it of us now. That was the wrong thing to pray. For the next two weeks, I heard about baptism everywhere. It was in the Bible where I was reading for almost every day. It was on the radio (yes, we did listen to mostly Christian radio stations). It was being preached about at church. I’m sure it was not mentioned at other times more than once out of every month or two. Was it coincidence? I decided at the time that it wasn’t. Sometime late last year, I was again intrigued by baptism. This time it was a specific verse, Luke 3:16, that caused it:

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

If I took the Dispensational view, I would be sorely tempted to say that John was speaking of Paul. On the page 231, Stam says:

In his later letters, written after the setting aside of Israel, he [Paul] states emphatically that there is now but "ONE BAPTISM" (Eph. 4:5). This baptism is the operation of the Holy Spirit whereby believers are made one with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-4, Gal. 3:26,27, Col. 2:9-12), and so are also made members of "one body," the "body of Christ" (I Cor. 12:13,27, Gal. 3:26-28).

It seems that the clear separation of the baptism of the Spirit must be under Paul’s teachings, right? Unfortunately the previous verse, Luke 3:15, makes it clear that John is speaking of who the Messiah would be when he came. This cannot be Paul. The same passage from Matthew (3:11-13) ties Jesus directly to this speech of John’s. Jesus did send the Holy Spirit and he has enabled us to lay hands on others for them to receive also. More on this in a bit. The sad part is that Stam has done some fairly good research. He knows that the word “baptism” is not found in the Old Testament, and he has dug far enough to know that the idea of baptism came from the purification rites of the priests (ie. Leviticus 16:4). He has not expounded much on it but this practice was taken and performed on those who wished to convert to Judaism. John did not invent the idea of baptizing, nor is it something entirely Christian. This may have added some complexity to the Pharisee’s answer when Jesus asked them where John’s baptism was from (Mark 11:30-32). After this, Stam tries to conclude that John’s Baptism to repentance was so that God could fulfill his promise to make Israel a nation of priests (pages 228-229; Exodus 19:6). I disagree with him on this because Stam claims an earthly kingdom would have been set up then. Jesus tells Peter to sheath his sword when the soldiers come for him and later, while being examined by Pilate, he makes it very clear that his kingdom is not of this world (see John 18). But I digress. What I thought was cool in Luke 3 is that we have a baptism by water and a baptism by fire. How has the world been destroyed and how will it be destroyed next? How about a hint? Water and fire. The old world was laid to rest under water. Yes, the sinful nature of humans has remained still. It will take fire to purge it out entirely. Yet while I think destructively, Tertullian (roughly 160 - 220 AD) saw baptism in a more constructive light. He pointed back to the creation:

For the suspension of the celestial firmament in the midst He caused by "dividing the waters;"[8] the suspension of "the dry land" He accomplished by "separating the waters." After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, "the waters" were the first to receive the precept "to bring forth living creatures."

In other words, it was from the water that sky was first made (Genesis 1:7,8) and that the firm, dry land was raised (Genesis 1:9). It was also in the water that the first life was created (Genesis 1:20,21). This is neat imagery and from an early Christian. But what if we lay aside the imagery and see what Paul actually did. After all, it is his teachings that we are supposed to study most heavily if Stam is right about the Dispensations. Here we have Acts 19:2-6:

He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

It is interesting that Paul immediately rebaptized them when he heard they had only John’s baptism. He did not lay his hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit until after that. Stam, on page 230, quotes I Corinthians 1:17,18:

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

This sounds like a pretty convincing argument. But read the preceding five verses (12-16):

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.



"Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" This is the point where I cough and gently ask whose name they were baptized in.
Two more questions and I'll quit this post. How do we follow Paul as he followed Christ (I Corinthians 11:1)? Can we dismiss that Jesus was also baptized even though he had no need to repent?